There has been a lot of discussion of The Pseudoscience Wars, revolving around Velikowsky’s work. All well and good, but this normative task of defining pseudoscience fails to see that Darwinism is a pseudoscience, making the discussion bordering on the absurd.
The question of the eonic effect evades the charge of pseudoscience because it proposes no theory, as such, although it suggests few as posible, but simply points to an empirical set of historical facts. The result, whatever its fancy wrapper, remains solidly grounded in reality, and addresses the question of a science of history in a realistic way.
You can argue that the generalization of the pattern seen is speculative, but it is only suggested as hypothesis. All of a sudden the ‘scientific’ view seems wrong, for a very simple reason: it can’t deal with the question ‘free agents’ in history.
We posted today (and will discuss) the question of pseudoscience. But the charge is hard to make stick for history where the question of science is ambiguous
http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap2_1_4.htm: Is there a science of history?
————————Link medley for WHEE
We tend that that ‘man evolved’ and then constructed civilization, but the speciation of man is still underway, and the rise of civilization is a second great stage to the emergence of ‘homo sapiens’.
A dose of empiricism The revolution in our knowledge of world history has uncovered something that must challenge the Darwinian assumptions about random evolution and natural selection. As we extend the scale of history to the scale of five thousand or more years, the empirical given of the historical development of civilization in a remarkable portrait of spontaneous self-organization shows us something that Darwinism cannot explain, and, further, the result looks like a complex hybrid of history and evolution. Instead of botched theories that distort our thinking we can follow the empirical outlines of episodes of evolution using periodization and descriptive analysis.
Reductionist Darwinism has ‘cheated’ on theory by eliminating the difficulty problems of will and moral action.
The result is a gross failure of science to really deal with the mystery of evolution.
The macro effect in a nutshell
The Meaning of Evolution We are so accustomed to Darwinian or reductionist definitions of genetic evolution that we forget the meaning of the term: evidence of developmental emergence by any process or dynamic. By that definition history shows a clear pattern of non-random evolution in the development of civilization (and the parallel development of human individuality).
Limits of Observation Biologists often distinguish the ‘fact’ of evolution from the ‘theory’. The difference is crucial, for it is relatively easy to see from the fossil record that evolution occurs as a succession/progression of animal forms, but to confirm that this occurs by a process of natural selection is far more speculative, and probably false. Truly observing evolution is difficult, and we cannot easily infer the mechanism from generalizations about immense vistas of time. What if evolution is an active or intermittent process that occurs at high speed in short intervals that we never observe?
History and Evolution A paradox confronts the distinction of evolution and history: when did evolution stop and history begin? This odd question is the clue to seeing that the relationship of history and evolution must show an interconnection. Further this braiding together is likely to show a series of transitions between the two. With this clue we can rapidly find the evidence for just this, which we call the ‘eonic effect’.
Theory Failsafe We are so beset by simplistic speculative theories that we fail to really observe or understand what evolution is. Simply tracking an evolutionary sequence over time is a useful discipline and a reminder of the real complexity of evolution. Tracking the evolutionary sequence detectable in world history is an immense task. We cannot easily produce theories about this.
An Evolution Formalism Darwinism is an oversimplification of what should be a standard formalism or model of evolution: this involves a kind of macro/micro distinction, and in the case of man takes the form of the idea of the ‘evolution of freedom’ as the passage from passive evolution to active free history through a macroevolutionary process or Transition (in this case a series of transitions) matched with a microevolutionary history of man’s self-realization of his emerging freedom. This overall framework (which is not a theory but a generalized descriptive device) fits human history perfectly, and the remarkable data of the eonic effect finds a useful clarification in terms of the evolution formalism. Students of evolution have already seen a distorted example of such an evolution formalism in theories of punctuated equilibrium, where the partition into macro and micro arises spontaneously. The point here is that ‘evolution’ is about some ‘macro’ ‘force or process’ that drives development.
Will Democracy Survive? Toward A Postdarwinian Liberalism
http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap7_3_2.htm: Ecological Endgames: A Tyranny of Markets
Proclaimed in the propaganda of freedom, there is an ironic tyranny in the ‘alienation’ of market dynamics…
a href=”http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap6_5_1.htm”>http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap6_5_1.htm: Last and First Men
This section has been praised as the clearest exppse/discussion of the Fukuyama propaganda piece on Hegel…
http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap6_5_2.htm: Theory and Ideology: Out of Revolution
The eonic effect illustrates beautifully the timing of the rising left in the wake of the French Revolution. But the way in which marxism took over the whole ideology in the period after 1848 is, and must remain, controversial, and, in any case, the whole set of questions requires a rewrite/rethink: the legacy of bolshevism has no future. Reading the previous post on the Occupy movement (vs. the Black Block) it is clear that the basis of a fresh vision is possible, but it is arguable that the current movement is still too inchoate to draw any conclusions.
We may be forced to something like the older movements with all their liabilities, but only if they start from scratch with a new formulation of the basics of marxism. It is not necessary to reject Marx, but that ideology has many problems, and a vulnerable theory.
The framework of the eonic effect is potentially a very useful one for a post-theoretical history: a time and motion study that shows the place of the left in the context of the modern transition. In any case historical materialism isn’t needed as a theory, set it aside and think in terms of constructivist communism as a form of social engineering.
Marxists will protest this, but the reality is that marxist ideology is a bit played out: state the same thing in simpler language, with theories which are easy targets, and constuct a definition of communism, and a strategy to reach it